One man's resistance: 'Why I turned against America'

Tolerated what exactly? What did Saddam do to America?

 

Not going to war but enforcing a no-fly zone, having thousands of intel agents, weapons inspectors inside Iraq, and surrounding his nation so that his days of invasion are done for good, does not equal playing nicey nicey.

 

Nothing. And if people only cared about themselves, that might have some relevence. Maybe America should not have entered into the European theater in WWII, eh? After all, what had Germany done to us (BTW, don't say declared war, because Saddam did that)? Maybe Milosevic should have been left to continue his genocide against the Muslims, since I don't recall the Yugo missiles raining down on New York.

 

Nothing in particular to the US, but he flaunted the agreements that were made with the US-led coalition back in 1991.

 

That's all nice and dandy, we'll agree to disagree about people minding their own business.

But I was just asking what you guys were tolerating, and the answer was "nothing", which is all I was looking for.

 

No, but containment did = 9/11. I think there is some confusion because (a) the Bush administration has repeatedly linked 9/11 and Iraq, and (b) the Bush Doctrine is being represented only as it pertains to terrorism.

9/11 and Iraq ARE linked, but not by Saddam aiding Al Queda. Rather from containment being the reason we are in Saudi Arabia. Being in Saudi Arabia was the driving force for AQ's attacks.

The Bush Doctrine does not just deal with the 'War on Terror' but with a proactive engagement of a whole spectrum of threats. 9/11 is ONE example of why waiting around for situations to solve themselves through diplomacy only is undesirable. When a threat is inevitable, it should be confronted asap. Saddam was an inevitable threat, hence he should be dealt with asap.

 

You're changing the question. You asked what "against the US" was being tolerated; both Moniker and I answered simultaneously "nothing."

It was you who specified "against the US"-- not me! The US was part of what Saddam was abusing but not the exclusive target.

 

That doesn't make sense. At what point did anyone claim that terrorists were contained? I don't think anyone made that claim, or if they did that any substantial amount of people believed the claim.

Terrorism was not contained and therefore a definite threat. Iraq was contained and no threat to the U.S. I have no problem with hunting out terrorist operations and striking them down where they stand. In fact that should be a part of the war against terrorism.

Nobody is suggesting to deal with terrorists by entering into diplomatic negotiations with them. That isn't even an option on the table. I also don't believe Saddam was just being dealt with only diplomatically. With a strictly enforeced no-fly zone, a deal on the table that would have sent intel agents into Iraq, a huge coalition of countries ready to strike Saddam down in the event of aggression by him, I don't believe he was a real threat to the U.S.

Bush's pre-emptive doctorine is faulty to begin with (IMO) and only selectively used anyway. It takes the U.S. out of any moral high ground, loses allies, and makes the war on terror harder to fight.

As General Anthony Zinni put it, containment was working with Saddam. The terrorists weren't contained and by the very nature of terrorism, can't be contained. Striking first at terrorists is a great idea. Striking first at contained dictators with a weak military and no hopes of ascension is bad idea.

 

Come on, Hayes! Now you are justifying the invasion and occupation of Iraq, as "linked" to 9/11, because the fallout from this got us out of Saudi Arabia? So now the reason for Osama and AQ to hate us, and to want to kill us, and other innocent people, is mollified? So maybe the problem will go away now?

And Saddam would have to be dealt with eventually, so why wait? Just jump in there and get it done? (which I agree with, btw, and said that before the invasion, but said that he could, and should, wait)

Talk about convoluted logic! Saddam was in a box. We were in control of that box. He hated AQ because he was a secular dictator, not a religious one, and saw them as a threat to his power.

The main link to terrorism from Saddam, not counting his actions against various groups of Iraqi people, were his payments of money to the families of suicide bombers in Israel. You have mentioned this before, as have I and some others here, as the most prominent thing Saddam did outside of his country that could be described as terror. The wars with Iran and Kuwait (Gulf War) were classic power plays that were not acts of terror, but acts of war.

Why the payments I mentioned were not the focus of Bush's rational for doing away with Saddam is beyond me. It was brought up much later, as an "afterthought," when he was coming up with his "other" reasons for this optional war.

He (Saddam) could have been told to end the payments as part of keeping us from "using the force" that Congress authorized as a means of coercion. And we could have negotiated a withdrawal of our forces from Saudi Arabia without invading Iraq. I see no reason why the two are linked, or needed to be linked... not at all.

And I don't see a "Bush Doctrine," far from it... I see a Bush foreign policy of disaster for the United States, based on a series of terrible decisions after the initial good one of invading Afghanistan to put paid to AQ and their enablers, the base providers, the fanatical, more than half mad "Muslim" Taliban. A job that wasn't finished, and should have been finished, before we gave any serious thought to doing more to Saddam than we could have done, short of the invasion and occupation of Iraq.


(man, I am having a bad day... kids... and their friends. Argh! I hope that this came out with any coherence at all)

 

I think you just misunderstood my post.

 

Look. There is no argument that our containment policy led to 9/11. The only reason we are in Saudi Arabia to begin with is to contain Saddam and Iraq. That is both the initial reason for the problems with Osama and THE MAIN justification for their jihad. That is simple fact.

Continuing containment of saddam is not consistent with the Bush Doctrine, which says you should proactively remove threats. People have made a joke now by saying 'the world is different after 9/11,' but the world IS different after 9/11. We WERE attacked because of our containment policy. So continuing that policy is certainly convenient for Europe because they didn't eat the brunt of the impact for the policy. We did and a change of course was necessary.

Again I don't dispute there was no direct link between Saddam and AQ, only an indirect one that I have written about above.

I agree generally but have no idea why this contradicts anything I've written. People constantly say 'what is the root of the problem, we must examine that FIRST.' Well, that can certainly get infinitely regressive, but at some point you have to look at AQ's beef. The first, major, most repeated, most announced issue is US troops in SA. To contend they (US troops in SA) are there for ANYTHING ELSE but to contain Iraq is to subscribe to such a wild leap of conspiracy that we might at well advocate that martians run the government.

Right. We're going to tell a 'Muslim' leader to stop supporting the aggressive Palestinians against Israel or we're going to invade them? Holy crap what a ****storm that would cause, lol. I'm sure that would have neither emboldened Saddam nor AQ. And your next suggestion is even better: negotiate with Iraq to withdraw our troops from SA? In return for what? Him promising to be a good boy? Once sanctions were lifted we'd be right back to square one because you can be damn sure the Russians, French, Germans, and Chinese would be willing to sell him whatever weapons systems he could buy, if we wouldn't (which isn't guaranteed). That's a senseless cycle of intervention that leaves no hope for an out. Invading Iraq does. It takes care of Saddam. It takes care of his inevitable threat, be it conventional or nuclear. It removes a state sponsor of terror. It removes the necessity for permanent US troop stations in SA, which happens to be the main beef with AQ.

Not disagreeing that Saddam could have waited. That doesn't mean he shouldn't have been taken down, or that there is no connection between our foreign policy with Iraq and AQ. I'm only explaining what the Bush Doctrine IS. Your opinion of it is an aside.

 

No, my opinion is just that... my opinion. No more or less valued than yours. And I never said to negotiate with Saddam about withdrawing our troops from Saudi Arabia. You said that, in replying to my post... a complete misinterpretation. I said we could have negotiated with the Saudi's to bring our forces out, if that was our desire.

As far as telling a "Muslim leader to stop supporting the aggressive Palestinians against Israel or we're going to invade them? Holy crap what a ****storm that would cause, lol." ...why do you think that was funny, or unrealistic? Saddam was desperately trying to forestall an invasion. If that was one of our conditions, then he would have had little choice. That was the whole point of giving Bush the teeth to threaten Saddam with force... to force him to change his policies. If he still does it, then one can chalk up another reason to launch an invasion, after going to extreme lengths to avoid it, through the use of threat of war, and after lining up a coalition to conduct it. And, most importantly, after finishing our other business. In Afghanistan, the Northwest tribal regions of Pakistan, and the other places where AQ actually were located. Not, like Saddam controlled Iraq, where they were not.

And worrying about what a ****storm forcing Saddam to stop the payments would cause in the region? Now that is hilarious. You honestly believe that wouldn't be easier and preferable to deal with than the ****storm this damned invasion has caused there?? Wow.

I don't find any of my post hilarious. I think going to far greater lengths than Bush did, before going to war, was the sane thing to do. What Bush did was an act of blatant stupidity for which we pay the price today, and tomorrow, and for the foreseeable future.

Frankly, a great deal of your post makes little sense to me.

 

Alright. Calm down. I'm not devaluing your opinion. In fact, I generally like your posts and read them.

Not following. The Saudis cannot protect themselves, so what would we negotiate about? Its not the Saudi government that bombed the WTC, its AQ.

Because if your goal is to lessen Islamic anti-americanism, that doesn't sound like to good an idea. No offense intended, just my opinion which isn't worth (inherently) any more than yours.

Deckard this is just unrealistic. We couldn't even get him to open up to inspectors with the threat of force. If he was desperate to forestall the invasion he would have capitulated to the inspection demands at the 11th hour when the administration said 'ok, there won't be an invasion if you open up completely to inspections.' You're talking about adding other conditions when we couldn't get the FIRST condition met.

Well, again, I'm not saying this had to happen immediately. I'm saying when you look at the Bush Doctrine, it is predicated on handling issues proactively, not sitting back and waiting. I believe the administration really did believe we'd be into Iraq and done much quicker because a democratic regime would emerge and the Iraqis would be happy. They were wrong, obviously, but it could have turned out differently. Then sans a need for containment we remove AQ's MAIN point of contention, and support. US troops in SA.

Where did I say that? Although think about it. Which would cause greater anti-americanism from muslims? The US invading Iraq specifically because they were supporting Palestinians, or because we wanted oil/were afraid of WMDs/wanted to get saddam? Even invading for oil would be less a slap in the face that straight out invading to protect israel. C'mon, deckard. We're constantly saying the two are NOT connected, not the other way around.

I don't disagree heartily. I think going into Iraq was the right decision. Going when and why we did are another matter.

I hope this helps.

 

Hayes, that helped, but why couldn't we have protected Saudi Arabia with our troops repositioned in the Gulf States, as they are now, and with Saddam still in his "box?"

There were reports that Saddam was offering to open his country to basically whatever investigators we wanted to put in there, to look for WMD's. Now, I don't know how realistic that was. Saddam constantly said one thing and did another, although he sometimes said things and then did them. Go figure. But I believe that it would have been worth trying. He was no clear and present danger to this country when he was invaded. There was no reason to rush to war. The only reason I saw constantly in reports, which is predicated not on trying to figure out a way to avoid war at all, was that we needed to go in as soon as possible, to avoid fighting during the summer months. Ironically, it's something we have been doing anyway.

And as far as just using the suicide bombers family payments as a reason... it would have been just one of several. I pointed that out because it's the only thing he did, that jumps out at me, which clearly supported terror. It was not creating much of a blip on the Bush Administration's radar screen at all, in the run-up to the invasion.

Again, he could have waited. Bush could have waited. I think we agree that Bush's foreign policy is a shambles, to use an understatement. I think pulling out of Saudi, on our own initiative, positioning our forces in the Gulf States, as we have, and even threatening to invade Yemen, which is another hotbed of AQ activity, while using far more force in Afghanistan and that region to clean out AQ and the Taliban, not taking intelligence resources away from there to deal with Iraq, and to have a strong, more evenhanded policy towards the Israeli/Palestinian conflict... all those thing, and more, while keeping Saddam in his "box," would have been far more effective, left us with the bulk of our forces uncommitted, leaving them as a more credible threat to North Korea and the Mullahs in Iran... those actions would have left us more secure, retained far more support from the world and our Allies, and left us with what was our greatest weapon...

Scaring the hell out of our enemies, by leaving them wondering what we might do next, instead of emboldening them because they see us as bogged down in a nightmare situation in Iraq.